John 1:18

John 1:18 calls Jesus the begotten God. Therefore he must be God Almighty right?

“No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”

Seems pretty clear doesn’t it. Jesus is God, the only begotten God.

Case closed……………….Not so fast.

John 1:18 is actually rendered in two different ways. One uses the word ‘son’, the other ‘God’.
Translations render these differently because ancient manuscripts use either one.

Before I begin to explain further, I need to point out that it is clear that these two different versions show that there is some textual corruption. Only one version can be true (or neither if we want to get technical). For now, let’s examine different translations of this verse and you will see it is divided between ‘begotten theos/god or begotten son.

(King James Version)
“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

(New International Version)
“No-one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.”

(New American Version)
“No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.”

(Revised Standard Version)
“No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.”

(New Living Bible)
“No one has ever seen God. But his only Son, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart; he has told us about him.”

(New Jerusalem)
“No one has ever seen God; it is the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.”

So which one is correct? Well I suppose a person who believes in the Trinity would say one and a person who doesn’t would say the other to suit their views. But I am going to show you that neither support the Trinity Doctrine.

Let’s imagine that it is, “begotten God”. Well that doesn’t prove a Trinity nor the idea that Jesus is God. Why? Because God is without beginning and begotten means that you came from another at some point. Thus if Jesus is the begotten theos, then he is not the eternal God by whom all came. So if this is true, then the way to read this verse would be as further clarification for John 1:1. Here we see that the Word was theos, and so verse 18 could be implying that this Word that was with God came to be with him by being begotten of God.

But is there proof or some evidence that supports ‘begotten theos’? Well Origen read it that way, thus if it is incorrect, then it is an old corruption. But it is indeed a strange corruption if it is because most corruptions that were changed or implanted in order to support the Trinity, show up in the AKJV and its text the Textus Receptus. Such as John 5:7 and 1Tim 3:16. Yet here we have the opposite. The AKJV says, ‘begotten son’, while the NIV and NASB both infer ‘begotten theos/god’. This alone leads me to believe that ‘begotten theos could be the right one. However, there is also good circumstantial evidence that ‘begotten son is correct and thus this translation in no way supports the Trinity either.

The evidence for this view is the context of John 1:1-18. Verse 8 itself is considered the concluding verse in his gospel’s prologue (John 1-18) and we read just 4 verses back in verse 14 where it says, “we beheld his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten from a father, full of grace and truth”. So verse 18 could well be building on this and saying the same thing but being more specific by saying only begotten son. We also see the term ‘begotten son’ elsewhere in his book such as JOHN 3:16 and 18:

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have everlasting life.”

John 3:18
“He that believes on him is not judged: but he that believes not has been judged already, because he has not believed on the name of the only-begotten Son of God.”

So if we had to choose between begotten son or begotten god, then John’s use of “begotten son” elsewhere gives some support that verse 18 is ‘begotten son’ if we think that he was being consistent with this phrase.

But let’s take a look at some other verses from John to see if he believes that Jesus is God.

In John 5:44, Jesus criticizes his opponents “who receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God.” Jesus uses the adjective monos meaning “only.”

Second, in JOHN 17:3 Jesus prays to his Father and states, “this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you sent.” In this verse Jesus again uses the adjective “only.” The Greek word rendered “true” means “true, real, genuine.” Jesus’ statement in JOHN 17:3 is clear. He distinguishes between himself and the Father, and clearly describes the Father as “the only true God.” By his own logic, whatever Jesus may be, he cannot be “true God” since the Father is “the only true, real or genuine God.” If the Father is elsewhere described as “the only true God” how can the Son also be the true God, when only one is the true God and this one true God sent his son into the world.

So whatever view we take concerning this matter, neither teach or support the Trinity Doctrine. Both are opposed to it.

← Go back to ‘Supporting the Trinity Doctrine‘.

Discussion